Death of Osama Bin Laden

PDN

anymore wrote: »

It may not suit present day Christian preachers in this ' touchy feely' era to acknowledge the amount of violence in the Christianity but it is well recorded in history.

It actually suits them very well indeed. Most Christian preachers, myself included, make a point of preaching on the violence of the Cross every week.

You know full well there are fundamentalist Christians, particularly in the US, who take the words of the bible literally and this phrase could quite easily be taken at face value.

I'm sorry, but you are talking nonsense.

First of all, no-one in the US takes all the words of the Bible literally. Everyone recognises that the Bible contains metaphors and symbols. No-one, for example, believes that Jesus is a literal Vine sprouting branches instead of hair.

Secondly, I have years of experience of dealing with various Christians in the US - including many fundamentalists. I have never come across a single person, other than trolls in this forum, who have interpreted the words of Luke 19 as sanctioning violence.

I have suggested that its inclusion by Luke was a mistake on his part or perhaps it was put in for some particular reason which is now not known.

And I am suggesting that your suggestion is not shared by Biblical scholars or by anyone other than atheists who want to take every Bible verse in a way that suits their distorted and antagonistic views of Christianity.

Nonetheless, given that it is in there, people must be allowed to interpret it as they wish. And for that reason i feel it may indeed be used in this thread.

It's a free country and of course people must be allowed to interpret anything whatever way they choose. You are allowed, if you so wish, to interpret it as a coded message from aliens encouraging the human race to eat more Marmite.

But, if language is to have any objective meaning at all, then the rest of us must also be allowed to point out that your interpretation is plainly wrong-headed.

Now, given that we've established that you are choosing to interpret Scripture in an idiosyncratic way that ignores the views of biblical scholars or indeed of anyone with any historical knowledge of 1st Century palestine and Hebraic thought - can we move on to discuss Bin Laden?

Donatello

Interesting article from The Remnant:

Osama Bin Laden
We Got Him, Alright. But At What Cost?

Let us not exult over the assassination of Osama bin Laden. I will herein give some reasons why we shouldn’t and I will encourage everyone to show him the Mercy that Jesus and Mary would want us to show him.

The first reason is Mercy. Let us remember that Catholic tradition has the Blessed Virgin eagerly seeking the whereabouts of the Deicide, the Iscariot, on Holy Saturday to offer him Her Motherly Mercy and to call him to repentance—before she had learned that he had hung himself. Our Savior calls upon us to seek His Mercy. He does not ask us to dispense the justice that He reserves for Himself.

Bin Laden was not the Head of State nor was he leading an army invading our homes. Satan is the head of such an army, but Bin Laden was in a legal sense only a private citizen and merely the charismatic leader of a group of anti-Christian and anti-American heretical Mohammedans. If you have ever lived abroad for a time you will understand why many foreigners do detest the “Great Satan.”

Let’s speak first of the pornographic garbage that we export to the minds and hearts of the lands of the world. This is reason enough for many to hate America. In movies, on television, in print and on the internet our citizens broadcast to the world the celebratory defiance of the sixth commandment—and this is the one sending most souls to hell (Fatima).

I can understand why many Mohammedans (Muslims is only a recent rephrasing of what for centuries all English speakers called followers of Mohammed) hate our culture. We defend and extol vice. At every level of government—local, state and national—we defend the rights of Americans to sin gravely against God’s laws, and we punish and stigmatize the minority who disapprove.

Next, where do we Americans think we derive the authority to send our armed forces to every corner of the globe at every whim of ours—often to promote a democratic ideal that has within our own borders proven to be a colossal moral failure? There were many great benefits when the West was governed by the Catholic monarchs, and so do the Muslims also recognize some benefits from the state enforced strict observance of the morality God decreed in His Commandments.

Yes, Islam is a heresy, but to their credit they do recognize the virtue of purity. Jesus did preach virtue to both the Jews and to the heathen gentiles, and it is the latter who more readily heard and accepted His Word and thereafter conformed their lives towards virtuous conduct.

In my view every one of our foreign military adventures in the last fifty years has been wrong headed. Perhaps the worst example was our bombing of the Orthodox Serbs in the Balkans in the 1990s when we employed our military forces to defend the Muslims who had been invading and occupying “Catholic” lands since even before the fall of Constantinople in 1453. But also in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere we are off on fools’ errands. Allow me to predict that this latest adventure into Pakistan will raise the ire of Muslims throughout the world and will provoke a response that will lead to an increase of strife and violent repercussions that Americans will suffer.

Finally, Bin Laden did not receive a fair trial. I speak as a lawyer. We have heard about him and read about him. But have we heard the truth? I don’t know. He was not riding a steed carrying a standard at the forefront of an army galloping towards our villages. Satan does that. Bin Laden was living in a compound half way round the world. Normal international justice would have urged an arrest and a trial at the most.

Do we think we have the moral and legal authority to send our armies to kill any person on the globe who hates America? Many think they have good reason to hate us. And many Americans have good reasons to hate our culture, and rightly lament our country’s moral decline —especially the traditional Catholics who have always received persecution from the Protestant majority.

The Blessed Virgin Mary would have us praying for Bin Laden’s soul. And she would scold us sharply for exulting upon his execution for the foregoing reasons.

anymore

Donatello wrote: »

Interesting article from The Remnant:

Osama Bin Laden
We Got Him, Alright. But At What Cost?

Let us not exult over the assassination of Osama bin Laden. I will herein give some reasons why we shouldn’t and I will encourage everyone to show him the Mercy that Jesus and Mary would want us to show him.

The first reason is Mercy. Let us remember that Catholic tradition has the Blessed Virgin eagerly seeking the whereabouts of the Deicide, the Iscariot, on Holy Saturday to offer him Her Motherly Mercy and to call him to repentance—before she had learned that he had hung himself. Our Savior calls upon us to seek His Mercy. He does not ask us to dispense the justice that He reserves for Himself.

Bin Laden was not the Head of State nor was he leading an army invading our homes. Satan is the head of such an army, but Bin Laden was in a legal sense only a private citizen and merely the charismatic leader of a group of anti-Christian and anti-American heretical Mohammedans. If you have ever lived abroad for a time you will understand why many foreigners do detest the “Great Satan.”

Let’s speak first of the pornographic garbage that we export to the minds and hearts of the lands of the world. This is reason enough for many to hate America. In movies, on television, in print and on the internet our citizens broadcast to the world the celebratory defiance of the sixth commandment—and this is the one sending most souls to hell (Fatima).

I can understand why many Mohammedans (Muslims is only a recent rephrasing of what for centuries all English speakers called followers of Mohammed) hate our culture. We defend and extol vice. At every level of government—local, state and national—we defend the rights of Americans to sin gravely against God’s laws, and we punish and stigmatize the minority who disapprove.

Next, where do we Americans think we derive the authority to send our armed forces to every corner of the globe at every whim of ours—often to promote a democratic ideal that has within our own borders proven to be a colossal moral failure? There were many great benefits when the West was governed by the Catholic monarchs, and so do the Muslims also recognize some benefits from the state enforced strict observance of the morality God decreed in His Commandments.

Yes, Islam is a heresy, but to their credit they do recognize the virtue of purity. Jesus did preach virtue to both the Jews and to the heathen gentiles, and it is the latter who more readily heard and accepted His Word and thereafter conformed their lives towards virtuous conduct.

In my view every one of our foreign military adventures in the last fifty years has been wrong headed. Perhaps the worst example was our bombing of the Orthodox Serbs in the Balkans in the 1990s when we employed our military forces to defend the Muslims who had been invading and occupying “Catholic” lands since even before the fall of Constantinople in 1453. But also in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere we are off on fools’ errands. Allow me to predict that this latest adventure into Pakistan will raise the ire of Muslims throughout the world and will provoke a response that will lead to an increase of strife and violent repercussions that Americans will suffer.

Finally, Bin Laden did not receive a fair trial. I speak as a lawyer. We have heard about him and read about him. But have we heard the truth? I don’t know. He was not riding a steed carrying a standard at the forefront of an army galloping towards our villages. Satan does that. Bin Laden was living in a compound half way round the world. Normal international justice would have urged an arrest and a trial at the most.

Do we think we have the moral and legal authority to send our armies to kill any person on the globe who hates America? Many think they have good reason to hate us. And many Americans have good reasons to hate our culture, and rightly lament our country’s moral decline —especially the traditional Catholics who have always received persecution from the Protestant majority.

The Blessed Virgin Mary would have us praying for Bin Laden’s soul. And she would scold us sharply for exulting upon his execution for the foregoing reasons.

My goodness what nonsense !

In my view every one of our foreign military adventures in the last fifty years has been wrong headed. Perhaps the worst example was our bombing of the Orthodox Serbs in the Balkans in the 1990s when we employed our military forces to defend the Muslims who had been invading and occupying “Catholic” lands since even before the fall of Constantinople in 1453

Does the author understand that bin Laden launched two airlinersfull of people into the twin towers murdering close to 3,000 people, one airliner into another government building and another which was foiled by the sacrifice of its brave passengers ? No I guess not.
Here is an appropriate response :

.Rom 13:3-4 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.

. Acts 25:11 If then I am a wrongdoer, and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die; but if none of those things is true of which these men accuse me, no one can hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar

Donatello

anymore wrote: »

My goodness what nonsense !

In my view every one of our foreign military adventures in the last fifty years has been wrong headed. Perhaps the worst example was our bombing of the Orthodox Serbs in the Balkans in the 1990s when we employed our military forces to defend the Muslims who had been invading and occupying “Catholic” lands since even before the fall of Constantinople in 1453

Does the author understand that bin Laden launched two airlinersfull of people into the twin towers murdering close to 3,000 people, one airliner into another government building and another which was foiled by the sacrifice of its brave passengers ? No I guess not.
Here is an appropriate response :

.Rom 13:3-4 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.

. Acts 25:11 If then I am a wrongdoer, and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die; but if none of those things is true of which these men accuse me, no one can hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar

Friend, I am no fan of Islam nor Islamic terrorism. However, from where the Islamists are standing, America is the Great Satan, exporting its moral depravity around the world and bombing the hell out of various countries. Depending on who you listen to, there have been anywhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000 casualities of the Iraq War, most of them civilians.

America has no high moral horse any more than Bin Laden. Bin Laden made the most of available resources. America has a massive army it can use to wage wars. Bin Laden has to use what is available to him. Note I am not condoning nor justifying terrorism. That should be obvious but I'd be as well to reinforce that.

You would do well to read this reflection on terrorism.

When saying anything about terrorism, we must keep in mind two fundamental points:

1. The agents of terrorism are agents of evil.

2. Those attacked by terrorists are not necessarily innocent.

anymore

Donatello wrote: »

Friend, I am no fan of Islam nor Islamic terrorism. However, from where the Islamists are standing, America is the Great Satan, exporting its moral depravity around the world and bombing the hell out of various countries. Depending on who you listen to, there have been anywhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000 casualities of the Iraq War, most of them civilians.

America has no high moral horse any more than Bin Laden. Bin Laden made the most of available resources. America has a massive army it can use to wage wars. Bin Laden has to use what is available to him. Note I am not condoning nor justifying terrorism. That should be obvious but I'd be as well to reinforce that.

You would do well to read this reflection on terrorism.

Donatello, I wasnt attacking you but the article which is piece of trash that is not worth the effort of reading - why do does the US produce these kinds of people ?
As for the US being the Great Satan, do you have any idea of many millions of innocents have been slaughtered in Europe by europeans ?

himnextdoor

anymore wrote: »

Does the author understand that bin Laden launched two airlinersfull of people into the twin towers murdering close to 3,000 people, one airliner into another government building and another which was foiled by the sacrifice of its brave passengers ? No I guess not.
Here is an appropriate response :

Well, since Osama Bin Laden isn't ever going to stand trial for it, he can never be convicted of committing any of those crimes you have referred to. Not legally, anyway.

Nevertheless, because there was no trial and Osama Bin Laden's death therefore was not an execution, the Americans had no right to 'dump' his body; he should have been sent home to his family.

What I can't understand is that the funeral of Osama Bin Laden would have been a good opportunity to gather intelligence; why did the Americans sabotage the possibility to gather names and photographs of 'right-hand men' or other high-ranking members of Al-Qaeda?

anymore wrote: »

.Rom 13:3-4 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.

. Acts 25:11 If then I am a wrongdoer, and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die; but if none of those things is true of which these men accuse me, no one can hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar

The first quote gives the impression that the author was trying to appease the state while the second seems to indicate that the author was pleading for his life.

Not very martyr-ish really.

I think we should have a minute's silence to respect the passing of a man who has done more to bring a cooperative spirit to the most people since Mohammed laid down the foundation of Islam.

..................

Thank you.

anymore

himnextdoor wrote: »

Well, since Osama Bin Laden isn't ever going to stand trial for it, he can never be convicted of committing any of those crimes you have referred to. Not legally, anyway.

Nevertheless, because there was no trial and Osama Bin Laden's death therefore was not an execution, the Americans had no right to 'dump' his body; he should have been sent home to his family.

What I can't understand is that the funeral of Osama Bin Laden would have been a good opportunity to gather intelligence; why did the Americans sabotage the possibility to gather names and photographs of 'right-hand men' or other high-ranking members of Al-Qaeda?



The first quote gives the impression that the author was trying to appease the state while the second seems to indicate that the author was pleading for his life.

Not very martyr-ish really.

I think we should have a minute's silence to respect the passing of a man who has done more to bring a cooperative spirit to the most people since Mohammed laid down the foundation of Islam.

..................

Thank you.

From what I understand, the Saudis declined the offer to take his body and there was a certain pressure to bury him due to the Islamic custom of burying the corpse quickly. Burying him at sea was presumably to avoid his burial spot becoming a shrine - I am sure most reasonable people felt this was a good idea. I also understand sliding a corpse off a stretcher into the waves is a traditional way of burial at sea.
As for the quotes, I actaully found those on a Christian site which was using them to argue there was biblical evidence in favour of the death penalty.
So the second, Acts 25.11 puts the speaker in the position that if he has done anything deserving the death penalty, he would accept.
And I believe the first, Rom 13, is taken as indicating that the State has the power to punish transgressors including even the death penalty - presumably the reference to the sword is important here.
The fact of the matter is that the Christian Churches until recently both approved of the death penalty and many insisted upon it for heresy. So we have both the thoeritical consent for it in the Bible and the actual practice of it down through the centuries.
So, for example, the Salem Witch trials in the New World, in 1692, saw 19 men and women put to death for witchcraft and in the Old World as recently as 1826," a Spanish teacher, Cayetano Ripoll was executed in Valencia in 1826 by the Spanish Inquisition — the final victim of that infamous ecclesiastic tribunal.

Torture during the Inquisiton
URL="http://www.gerichtsmuseum-wolkenstein.de/mediac/450_0/media/Aufziehen$20der$20Inquisition.jpg"][COLOR=#425778]Gerichtsmuseum Wolkenstein[/COLOR][/URL

Ripoll was accused of teaching Deism to his students in Ruzafa — an act of heresy that would be harshly punished. ."

anymore

PDN wrote: »

It actually suits them very well indeed. Most Christian preachers, myself included, make a point of preaching on the violence of the Cross every week.


I'm sorry, but you are talking nonsense.

First of all, no-one in the US takes all the words of the Bible literally. Everyone recognises that the Bible contains metaphors and symbols. No-one, for example, believes that Jesus is a literal Vine sprouting branches instead of hair.

Secondly, I have years of experience of dealing with various Christians in the US - including many fundamentalists. I have never come across a single person, other than trolls in this forum, who have interpreted the words of Luke 19 as sanctioning violence.


And I am suggesting that your suggestion is not shared by Biblical scholars or by anyone other than atheists who want to take every Bible verse in a way that suits their distorted and antagonistic views of Christianity.


It's a free country and of course people must be allowed to interpret anything whatever way they choose. You are allowed, if you so wish, to interpret it as a coded message from aliens encouraging the human race to eat more Marmite.

But, if language is to have any objective meaning at all, then the rest of us must also be allowed to point out that your interpretation is plainly wrong-headed.

Now, given that we've established that you are choosing to interpret Scripture in an idiosyncratic way that ignores the views of biblical scholars or indeed of anyone with any historical knowledge of 1st Century palestine and Hebraic thought - can we move on to discuss Bin Laden?

The more research I am doing on the matter of christianity and the death penalty the more I find that there are christians who argue that there is evidence in the bible that suggests support for states imposing the death penalty.
For example here is a link arguing that St Augustine and St Thomas accpted the death penalty :http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/n012rp_DeathPenalty_Aquinas.htm
I have also quoted Romans 13 and Acts 25 which have been used to support the imposition of the death penalty.
I stress I am not offering a personal opinion here merely pointing to other Christians views on the matter.
So my question to you is do you accept that there are christians who hold the view that Capital punishment can be supported by the bible. I am not asking you to agree with them or to accept their arguements are valid, merely whether you agree they exist.

PDN

anymore wrote: »

The more research I am doing on the matter of christianity and the death penalty the more I find that there are christians who argue that there is evidence in the bible that suggests support for states imposing the death penalty.
For example here is a link arguing that St Augustine and St Thomas accpted the death penalty :http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/n012rp_DeathPenalty_Aquinas.htm
I have also quoted Romans 13 and Acts 25 which have been used to support the imposition of the death penalty.
I stress I am not offering a personal opinion here merely pointing to other Christians views on the matter.
So my question to you is do you accept that there are christians who hold the view that Capital punishment can be supported by the bible. I am not asking you to agree with them or to accept their arguements are valid, merely whether you agree they exist.

Yes, of course I accept they exist. Not for a moment have I suggested otherwise.

himnextdoor

anymore wrote: »

From what I understand, the Saudis declined the offer to take his body and there was a certain pressure to bury him due to the Islamic custom of burying the corpse quickly. Burying him at sea was presumably to avoid his burial spot becoming a shrine - I am sure most reasonable people felt this was a good idea. I also understand sliding a corpse off a stretcher into the waves is a traditional way of burial at sea.
As for the quotes, I actaully found those on a Christian site which was using them to argue there was biblical evidence in favour of the death penalty.
So the second, Acts 25.11 puts the speaker in the position that if he has done anything deserving the death penalty, he would accept.
And I believe the first, Rom 13, is taken as indicating that the State has the power to punish transgressors including even the death penalty - presumably the reference to the sword is important here.
The fact of the matter is that the Christian Churches until recently both approved of the death penalty and many insisted upon it for heresy. So we have both the thoeritical consent for it in the Bible and the actual practice of it down through the centuries.
So, for example, the Salem Witch trials in the New World, in 1692, saw 19 men and women put to death for witchcraft and in the Old World as recently as 1826," a Spanish teacher, Cayetano Ripoll was executed in Valencia in 1826 by the Spanish Inquisition — the final victim of that infamous ecclesiastic tribunal.

Torture during the Inquisiton
URL="http://www.gerichtsmuseum-wolkenstein.de/mediac/450_0/media/Aufziehen$20der$20Inquisition.jpg"][COLOR=#425778]Gerichtsmuseum Wolkenstein[/COLOR][/URL

Ripoll was accused of teaching Deism to his students in Ruzafa — an act of heresy that would be harshly punished. ."

The Saudis? If my son had just been murdered, I would turn heaven and hell over to get him back to his 'home'.

So his 'burial-spot' won't be a shrine; what about his birthplace? Should we now nuke Saudi Arabia just in case Osama Bin Laden supporters decide to 'rally' there?

I have agreed with most of your posts on this thread on an empirical and pragmatic basis but your assumption that Osama Bin Laden was the 'mastermind' behind 9/11 needs to be addressed; nowhere, anytime, has Osama Bin Laden, or representatives of any group which he is alleged to lead, indicated that he is in fact responsible for those atrocities.

Don't shout "Crucify him" just because everybody else is shouting "Crucify him". And just because Fanny Cradock and PDN won't address your specific points, don't get side-lined into a hearsay-based argument; America is wrong! Murder is wrong!

Whatever the Bible says, or the President of America says: murder is wrong.

People who need God to point that out to them need God!

Imagine: what kind of world would this be if religious people didn't believe in God?

At least with God there is law!

And we, the ones that know these things without justification from God, can thank God for that.

What happened to Osama Bin Laden is terrible in and of itself but what will history say about his young wife; she was murdered too?

If the conpetition is about killing innocent people then the Americans are winning by a mile and God will be most pleased with Americans. Question is: Am I a Shepherd or am I a Sheep? Is my opinion of myself less imprtant than God's opinion of me? If the competition is about killing innocent people then I think I would rather be in a different competition.

Fanny Cradock

himnextdoor wrote: »

Don't shout "Crucify him" just because everybody else is shouting "Crucify him". And just because Fanny Cradock and PDN won't address your specific points, don't get side-lined into a hearsay-based argument; America is wrong! Murder is wrong!

What points are you on about?

The funny thing is we agree with each other - murder is wrong. It's just that you are too busy looking for a fight to have noticed.

himnextdoor wrote: »

People who need God to point that out to them need God![/B

Obviously people don't need God to believe that murder is wrong. However, without God - i.e. without an ultimate source of morality - all you are left with, as one regular atheist poster to this forum recently reminded us, is opinion. Thus the statement "Murder is wrong" is no more an imperative than the statement "apples are nicer than oranges".

anymore

PDN wrote: »

Yes, of course I accept they exist. Not for a moment have I suggested otherwise.

Thank you for that clarification.

anymore

himnextdoor wrote: »

The Saudis? If my son had just been murdered, I would turn heaven and hell over to get him back to his 'home'.

So his 'burial-spot' won't be a shrine; what about his birthplace? Should we now nuke Saudi Arabia just in case Osama Bin Laden supporters decide to 'rally' there?

I have agreed with most of your posts on this thread on an empirical and pragmatic basis but your assumption that Osama Bin Laden was the 'mastermind' behind 9/11 needs to be addressed; nowhere, anytime, has Osama Bin Laden, or representatives of any group which he is alleged to lead, indicated that he is in fact responsible for those atrocities.

Don't shout "Crucify him" just because everybody else is shouting "Crucify him". And just because Fanny Cradock and PDN won't address your specific points, don't get side-lined into a hearsay-based argument; America is wrong! Murder is wrong!

Whatever the Bible says, or the President of America says: murder is wrong.

People who need God to point that out to them need God!

Imagine: what kind of world would this be if religious people didn't believe in God?

At least with God there is law!

And we, the ones that know these things without justification from God, can thank God for that.

What happened to Osama Bin Laden is terrible in and of itself but what will history say about his young wife; she was murdered too?

If the conpetition is about killing innocent people then the Americans are winning by a mile and God will be most pleased with Americans. Question is: Am I a Shepherd or am I a Sheep? Is my opinion of myself less imprtant than God's opinion of me? If the competition is about killing innocent people then I think I would rather be in a different competition.

From what I understand many of bin Laden's family had disowned him, but I might be wrong.
If I was bin Laden's father, I suspect I would either have disowned him myself or would feel that his killing was God's will. As for history and his wife, I suspect that history will have very little to say about her. We the ' little people' rarely matter! There was of course a heroic quality to her attempt to defend her husband but I cant say I have seen too many commentators dwelling on that. For me she was also one of bin Laden's innocent vitims What surprised me about the killing is that there were so few street protests - compare that with the public protests over the Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet or over Salmanie Rushdies novel. I would say the relative silence speaks volumes about the global Islamic reaction to this mans killing/ execution.
I will try to take your advice about not being sidetracked.

Morbert

himnextdoor wrote: »

If the conpetition is about killing innocent people then the Americans are winning by a mile and God will be most pleased with Americans. Question is: Am I a Shepherd or am I a Sheep? Is my opinion of myself less imprtant than God's opinion of me? If the competition is about killing innocent people then I think I would rather be in a different competition.

I think you're being a bit selective here. America is not winning by a Mile. China (up to 80 million) Europe (Over 15 million) and Russia (30 million), for example, have killed far more people than America.

Morbert

himnextdoor wrote: »

If the conpetition is about killing innocent people then the Americans are winning by a mile and God will be most pleased with Americans. Question is: Am I a Shepherd or am I a Sheep? Is my opinion of myself less imprtant than God's opinion of me? If the competition is about killing innocent people then I think I would rather be in a different competition.

I think you're being a bit selective here. America is not winning by a Mile. China (up to 80 million killed) Europe (Over 15 million killed) and Russia (30 million killed), for example, have killed far more people in the last century than America.

himnextdoor

Morbert wrote: »

I think you're being a bit selective here. America is not winning by a Mile. China (up to 80 million killed) Europe (Over 15 million killed) and Russia (30 million killed), for example, have killed far more people in the last century than America.

Maybe, maybe not. How many people have died of AIDS? Not all murder victims are shot or blown up and not all death-camps have a perimeter fence.

himnextdoor

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What points are you on about?

Interpretation of Scripture.

If my understanding of the 'Talents parable' is correct then Jesus depicts God as a ruthless capitalist. That makes me wonder why He went beserk in the temple where money-lenders and tax-collectors were effectively doing God's work.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The funny thing is we agree with each other - murder is wrong. It's just that you are too busy looking for a fight to have noticed.

I'm sorry; I'm not looking for a fight, it just makes me sick to the core to think that America are the moral authority and it seems that just as some people think that when God does 'evil' things then that 'evil' is good by definition, there are people, millions of people, who applaud the 'evil' carried out by the Americans, (Osama Bin Laden's murder), and celebrate it as an act of goodness.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Obviously people don't need God to believe that murder is wrong. However, without God - i.e. without an ultimate source of morality - all you are left with, as one regular atheist poster to this forum recently reminded us, is opinion. Thus the statement "Murder is wrong" is no more an imperative than the statement "apples are nicer than oranges".

But if God prefers apples, then apples are nicer than oranges aren't they? Even if apples make me sick.

You see, what is good for God is not necessarily good for you any more than what is good for me is not necessarily good for you; your morality decides what is good to you and God's morality decides what is good to Him.

It's funny: Atheists look to their own morality and are under-represented in the prison population where Christians look to God's morality and are over-represented in the prison population.

So, my morality says that America were wrong to murder Osama Bin Laden and, I gather, so does yours in which case we should be openly condemning America for flouting the rule of law. As for God's morality, God wasn't so morally outraged by the existence of Osama Bin Laden as to lend the Americans a hand in rooting him out was He? In fact, there is an argument to say that since Osama Bin Laden was able to evade the Americans, with all their technology and intelligence, for so long, God must have been helping him. He certainly wasn't helping America; look what their hard-on for Osama Bin Laden has cost them. And now they resort to murder?

Like I say, if God endorses the actions of the Americans then I have a problem with God. And if God supports murder then my moral standards are higher than God's in an objective way.

Fanny Cradock

himnextdoor wrote: »

Like I say, if God endorses the actions of the Americans then I have a problem with God. And if God supports murder then my moral standards are higher than God's in an objective way.

Do you understand what objective morality means?

himnextdoor

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Do you understand what objective morality means?

It doesn't exist; all morality is subjective.

Fanny Cradock

So why are you saying that America is wrong and your "moral standards are higher than God's in an objective way". If it is in the interest of the US to kill bin Laden then they were weren't wrong. All you can say is you find it personally disagreeable, which is unfortunate because they aren't listening.

himnextdoor

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So why are you saying that America is wrong and your "moral standards are higher than God's in an objective way". If it is in the interest of the US to kill bin Laden then they were weren't wrong. All you can say is you find it personally disagreeable, which is unfortunate because they aren't listening.

So you are defining what is in the interests of the USA as being right? How about what is in the interests of the Mafia; is witness intimidation wrong? What does it depend on?

Is hypocrisy wrong? And are the Americans guilty of hypocrisy? Is hypocrisy not a moral compromise? My morality says that the Americans are being/have been hypocritical and I'll bet you that Obama knows it too.

Claim to export democracy and the rule of law and flout those same imposed values - hypocrisy. To denounce terrorism and then carry out acts of terrorism - immoral.

It doesn't matter how you put it, even by American standards, the murder of Osama Bin Laden was immoral regardless of the political implications for the US administration.

You think it was wrong, I think it was wrong, the Americans know it was wrong - denounce it.

PDN

himnextdoor wrote: »

So you are defining what is in the interests of the USA as being right? How about what is in the interests of the Mafia; is witness intimidation wrong? What does it depend on?

Is hypocrisy wrong? And are the Americans guilty of hypocrisy? Is hypocrisy not a moral compromise? My morality says that the Americans are being/have been hypocritical and I'll bet you that Obama knows it too.

Claim to export democracy and the rule of law and flout those same imposed values - hypocrisy. To denounce terrorism and then carry out acts of terrorism - immoral.

It doesn't matter how you put it, even by American standards, the murder of Osama Bin Laden was immoral regardless of the political implications for the US administration.

You think it was wrong, I think it was wrong, the Americans know it was wrong - denounce it.

Er, I think you've just missed Fanny's point by a few light years.

Since you think all morality is subjective then you can't say anything is wrong. If it's in America's interest, and if all morality (according to you) is subjective, then it ain't wrong.

himnextdoor

PDN wrote: »

Er, I think you've just missed Fanny's point by a few light years.

Since you think all morality is subjective then you can't say anything is wrong. If it's in America's interest, and if all morality (according to you) is subjective, then it ain't wrong.

Yes, by concensus, it is.

Doesn't morality have consideration of others built in to it? Is it moral to act in ones own interests? Selfishness isn't a morality-based response and there are some here who would say that selfishness is a sin and therefore immoral by definition.

If I cannot say that rape is wrong then what is it that would compel me to intercede on a rape-victim's behalf?

If I can't say that murder is wrong then what is it that makes me disgusted by the actions of the Americans?

The fact that we disagree on the legality of Osama Bin Laden's murder actually goes to prove the subjectivity of morality. Yours, mine and theirs.

Donatello

himnextdoor wrote: »

Doesn't morality have consideration of others built in to it? Is it moral to act in ones own interests? Selfishness isn't a morality-based response and there are some here who would say that selfishness is a sin and therefore immoral by definition.

If I cannot say that rape is wrong then what is it that would compel me to intercede on a rape-victim's behalf?

If I can't say that murder is wrong then what is it that makes me disgusted by the actions of the Americans?

The fact that we disagree on the legality of Osama Bin Laden's murder actually goes to prove the subjectivity of morality. Yours, mine and theirs.

But if morality is subjective then a person might not care about others. That's their morality. They care only for themselves.

According to your line of thought, the concept of selfishness is irrelevant. One man's selfishness is another man's legitimate self-interest.

The fact that you would like to intervene if you see a rape taking place is another matter. Perhaps it's a recognition of the Golden Rule as being a universal norm.

Your disagreement with PDN is not about morality as such but about the interpretation of law.

himnextdoor

Donatello wrote: »

But if morality is subjective then a person might not care about others. That's their morality. They care only for themselves.

Which I would classify as a lower moral standard.

Surely ones morality can be defined as 'the extent to which ones code of conduct positively enhances the lives of others'? I think murder is bad and therefore I will act against it; isn't that a good thing regardless of whether murder is right or wrong?

I'm not saying that not acting against evil makes a person immoral but a moral person would feel guilt, he would be discomfited by his conscience.

Donatello wrote: »

According to your line of thought, the concept of selfishness is irrelevant. One man's selfishness is another man's legitimate self-interest.

Not if morality is a measure of the consideration you have for the welfare of others. For me, 'good' means 'life affirming', positive, nurturing whereas evil has destructive, negative connotations. The difference between good and evil is the same as the difference between joy and sorrow and I want to encourage one and vanquish the other.

Which means that according to my morality, the Americans need to be vanquished.

Donatello wrote: »

The fact that you would like to intervene if you see a rape taking place is another matter. Perhaps it's a recognition of the Golden Rule as being a universal norm.

It's recognition that you should help someone in need. But a Golden Rule works for me too.:)

And again, don't get me wrong, there are people who have ignored the plight of others and as a result of their inaction they see a horrible article on the news. Such people don't brag about these things though precisely because they are morally compromised; their consciences disturb them. Unless they are immoral in which case they don't care.

Donatello wrote: »

Your disagreement with PDN is not about morality as such but about the interpretation of law.

Nah, he just doesn't like me very much.